Trademark - Page 2

This is FindLaw's collection of Trademark articles, part of the Intellectual Property section of the Corporate Counsel Center. Law articles in this archive are predominantly written by lawyers for a professional audience seeking business solutions to legal issues. Start your free research with FindLaw.

Provided by
Preston C. Regehr of Parsons Behle & Latimer
On March 4, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to famous trademarks. In a unanimous ruling against Victoria Secret in its claim against a mom and pop Kentucky store selling lingerie and adult novelties under the brand "Victor's Little Secret", the court required a showing of actual damage from "blurring and eroding the distinctiveness" of the famous mark.

Provided by
Bassam N. Ibrahim and Bryce J. Maynard of Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, L.L.P.
In a surprising decision with important ramifications for owners of famous trademarks, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 4, 2003 that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") requires proof of actual dilution. Mosely v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., No. 01-1015. Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, concluded that the FTDA "unambiguously requires a showing of actual dilution, rather than a likelihood of dilution."

Provided by
Ira J. Levy of Goodwin Procter LLP
The purpose of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act is to protect famous trademarks from third party uses. However, with a few particular exceptions, the FTDA has failed to live up to its potential, and has failed to provide owners of famous marks the protection that they rightly or wrongly anticipated.

Provided by
Jones Day
It is essential that clients and their lawyers consider functionality and its impact on trade dress claims prior to filing any utility patent application. Further, those seeking to protect a product s design as an indicator of origin must be extremely careful in either a patent prosecution or even marketing literature about making any claim about the design that relates to functionality.